Gregory Barker: I had not expected to, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for my inattention, as I had been expecting to intervene on Question 2. However, at your direction, I shall intervene on Question 1 because what I want to say is still apposite.
	After 13 years of Labour government, we still have the most energy-inefficient homes in Europe and many, many millions more homes require action. Will the Government now embrace our green deal, namely £6,500 of energy-efficiency improvements for every home? Or, given that B & Q, Marks and Spencer, Tesco and leading energy companies have all embraced our approach, is this another issue where Labour is at war with business?

David Kidney: In recent months I have seen good examples of energy companies trying to improve the clarity of their bill -plain English, the way the bills are set out and the information that they give. I applaud the example that the hon. Member gives and encourage other energy companies to do the same. I would like to be returned to Government, in this Department, to do more on this subject after 6 May.

Barry Sheerman: I once lived in a 17(th) century stone cottage in a rural area, so I know how difficult it is to take those measures-[ Interruption.] Hon. Members seem to be amused by the fact that I lived in a stone cottage. The Government have done such good things in terms of Warm Zone and Warm Front, and the Minister knows of the proud record of Kirklees and Huddersfield. Is it not about time that a useless organisation-the National House-Building Council-which, as every lawyer will tell you, issues certificates that are not worth the paper they are written on, stopped allowing any building that does not conform to a high level of sustainability?

Edward Miliband: Let me start by saying that I have also enjoyed our exchanges. The hon. Gentleman shadowed me when I was the Minister for the Third Sector and since then when I have been Secretary of State for Energy and Climate change. I look forward to him continuing to shadow me in his present post after the general election.
	The energy regulator put forward a series of projections based on modelling in the project discovery document to which he referred. The difference is that what I read out are actual plans that are being taken forward for 20 GW of new power. I am confident about security of supply, but the big question for Britain is whether it should be low-carbon or high-carbon security of supply. That is why it is so important that we move forward on nuclear and indeed renewables, on which the Conservative party has a bad record locally.

Greg Clark: The trouble is that the Secretary of State is auditioning for the role of Leader of the Opposition, and we wish him very well in that effort.
	The right hon. Gentleman's most significant achievement is a mastery of the cut-and-paste function on Conservative policy, so will his manifesto match ours in establishing a floor price for carbon, a green deal for every home in the country, an offshore electricity grid, a network of marine energy parks, a security guarantee in the electricity market, a smart meter in homes by 2016 and no third runway at Heathrow? The Energy Networks Association has called that package:
	"the most comprehensive energy policy ever produced by an opposition."

Alun Michael: What estimate he has made of the potential contribution of off-shore wave energy to meeting energy needs in the next 10 years.

David Kidney: The Carbon Trust has estimated that between 1 and 2 GW of wave and tidal energy could be deployed in UK waters by 2020. This will be followed by large scale deployment in the period beyond 2020.

David Kidney: In the future, as depicted in the low carbon transition plan last year, our energy will come from a diverse range of sources, including all kinds of renewables, new nuclear power, and clean fossil fuels such as coal and gas with carbon capture and storage. Within that, marine energy has a huge part to play, as was shown in the recent marine energy action plan, which was agreed between my Department and the industry, with the result that the Carbon Trust estimates that there should be about 16,000 jobs directly engaged in wave and tidal stream energy by 2040.

Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have two points of order on the same subject. First, you will be aware that on 4 March the House voted to reform its procedures by an overwhelming majority, and essentially instructed the Government to bring forward the Standing Orders for that purpose in this Parliament. Those were the terms of the motion. The Government have not done that. Have you heard of a precedent for the Government defying the will of the House in that way? If they can do that, what is the point of our being here if we can pass a motion instructing the Government to do something and the Government just ignore it?
	My second point of order is that it emerged yesterday that one of the excuses that the Government gave for not introducing the Standing Orders was that they had tabled them for approval without objection They said that because objections had been made against their will, they could not bring forward those Standing Orders by that method. I am glad that the Deputy Chief Whip is in his place. It turned out yesterday that when one of the people-the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong)-who had put down objections responded to an e-mail from the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) asking her to remove her amendments, which counted as objections, her office referred the matter to the Government Whip's Office. That means that the Government were objecting to their own motion, by proxy. Is it acceptable for the Government, first, to do that and, secondly, to attempt to mislead the House-apparently inadvertently-by saying that these were individuals acting freely?

Orders of the Day

Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 5, clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert
	'within six months of receiving such a proposal.'.
	Amendment 6, page 2, leave out lines 28 to 32.
	Amendment 7, page 2, leave out lines 33 and 34.
	Amendment 8, page 2, leave out lines 35 and 36.
	Amendment 9, in page 2, leave out lines 37 and 38.
	Amendment 10, in page 2, leave out lines 46 to 49.
	Amendment 11, in page 3, leave out lines 3 to 5.
	Amendment 12, in page 3, leave out lines 13 to 16.
	Amendment 13, in page 3, leave out lines 17 to 27.
	Amendment 14, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'or an order under section 5C'.
	Amendment 15, in page 3, line 39, leave out 'or an order under section 5C'.

Christopher Chope: I much regret that I never got a response from the Leader of the House to my offer yesterday to forgo this one-hour debate so that we could deal with the issue of the Business Committee. The Government said that the shortage of time meant that they were not prepared to bring the matter forward. It is incredibly impolite of the Government not even to respond to my offer to allow this debate to go short to allow time to discuss that all-important business issue.
	In facing the reality that the Government do not listen and are not interested in Back-Bench opportunities, I suppose it is something to be given an hour to discuss this important Bill. It is a pity that it has to be discussed on the day we are expecting Prorogation because there were many earlier opportunities to discuss it had the Government been willing to put the matter on the Order Paper for those several days before Easter when the House rose far earlier than it needed to under the normal arrangements.
	The amendment relates to measures that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) expressed concerns about on Second Reading. From the Front Bench, my hon. Friend expressed concern on behalf of the Local Government Association about the proposed measures to allow the Secretary of State to publish regulations on the procedure for making proposals. He said that such regulations were likely to lead to increased prescription governing consultation and engagement with parish councils and petitioners, as well as confusion over the form, content and timing of the proposals. According to the LGA, the resource implications for local authorities of participating under the Act were considerable and should not be underestimated.
	My hon. Friend cautioned against being too prescriptive on establishing a national template for what is best for everyone in terms of consultation and engagement with local community groups. He said that we should trust local authorities to be responsive and not to prescribe too much for them. Nothing was done to table an amendment along those lines to reflect my hon. Friend's concerns in the short time-

Christopher Chope: It is certainly helpful to me and I hope that the Serjeant at Arms will do so with great expedition. Obviously time is running short for a further ruling that might come as a result of those inquiries.
	I have tried to articulate our concerns in the form of a group of amendments to which I shall refer shortly. I tabled amendment 1 because clause 1 is effectively a retrospective provision. It changes the rules of the game after the event. Local authorities, with community groups, were encouraged to participate in a bidding process under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. That process was always being delayed by the Government. For example, the Act came into law in October 2007. Under its terms, the Government had to invite bids within one year. Instead of inviting bids over a short period, they invited them over a nine-month period, so that the bids had to be in by the end of July last year. Those bids-there were more than 300 from 100 different local authorities-had then to be considered extensively by a panel, which had as its chairman Councillor Keith Mitchell of the LGA. The panel worked extremely hard to go through all the bids and assess them by using the criteria set down in the original Bill. It then presented them to the Secretary of State, who I saw fleetingly for about a minute on the Front Bench just now, but he has obviously decided that this matter is beneath his dignity, which is a great pity. I know from experience how marginal the seat of Southampton, Itchen is, so I imagine he is heading off there to participate in a closely fought general election campaign.

Nicholas Winterton: Labours Members have not rushed back.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was trying to make an orderly intervention, but unfortunately he failed in the attempt. I know that when the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) gets to his feet, he will not spend time dilating on those matters, but will focus his remarks very narrowly on the specific terms of the amendment, because time is being taken that might otherwise be taken by other hon. or right hon. Members.

Christopher Chope: I have never been one for dilating. On subject of time, it is important to recognise that it is only because some of us have insisted on having the matter debated, rather than letting it go through on the nod, that we are discussing it at all. I am conscious of the fact that it is important that we have a chance to explain the amendments and get a response about them from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), the promoter of the Bill. I am not sure that the way things are timed out means that we will have long for a discussion on Third Reading. We will have to rest the matter there.
	Amendment 1 relates to the primary Act-the Sustainable Communities Act 2007-under which local authorities were invited to submit bids. I have gone through the process that the local authorities went through and I know that they are expecting to get a decision from the Government on those bids. Indeed, the open letter that Mr. Mitchell sent to the Secretary of State at the turn of the year, when the short list was put forward, states:
	"We hope that the process"-
	of discussing the proposals-
	"will be completed before the Easter recess so that councils can get on with the job of delivering for their local residents."
	He asked the Secretary of State to set up a series of meetings in January and February to that end. On Second Reading on 26 February, the Minister expressed lots of hope and expectation that progress was going to be made on delivering a response to the bids by this time-the last day of this Session. However, nothing has happened. In a sense, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire is giving an excuse to the Government for further delay because clause 1 changes the applicable rules. By doing so, officialdom is given an excuse to say, "Well, we've now got to go back and look at the bids again using different criteria." The Secretary of State previously had to say whether a proposal should be implemented, but now if clause 1 remains unamended, he can decide whether it should be implemented in whole or in part. That is a completely different concept. It is one thing to say that future bids should be assessed on that basis-indeed, that is covered in clause 2-but it is wrong in principle to change the rules at this stage of the game because such an alteration is retrospective and will be counter-productive. That change will cause a lot of disappointment to local authorities and those who are engaged in the bidding process with good will, as they had hoped something would be achieved.
	If my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who drove through the original Bill-I am pleased to see him in his place-were being frank, I think he would have expected to see some results from his efforts by the end of this Parliament. However, there have been no results. As with all these things, I suppose there may be a silver lining, which is that an incoming Conservative Government will be able to assess the bids de novo and come up with more sensible conclusions that might otherwise have not been reached. That does not alter my concern about the retrospective nature of clause 1, which is why I have tabled my amendment.
	Amendments 5 to 15 relate to regulations. Amendment 5 states that if we are going to be prescriptive, we should be prescriptive in respect of the Secretary of State's timetable. That amendment, which applies to page 2, line 15 of the Bill, would require the Secretary of State to consider each proposal and to decide
	"within six months of receiving such a proposal."
	That seems to be a sensible element of prescription, because it puts the pressure on the Secretary of State to respond in a timely fashion. At the moment, the proposals are sitting on desks in the Department and nothing much is happening to them. We should at least learn from the past and ensure that, when we have future rounds of bidding, the Secretary of State has to respond quicker to the proposals.
	We should pay tribute to the LGA for working so hard to go through all the original proposals and come up with a short list that sets out in detail the merits and demerits of each proposal and links them together in convenient categories-in other words, for doing a lot of the Secretary of State's work. It is a pity that the Secretary of State did not respond in a timely fashion to such a proposal, but amendment 5 would ensure that in future the Secretary of State would have to so respond.
	Amendment 6 would remove the provision-albeit a permissive provision-in subsection (3)(a) of proposed new section 5B that would require
	"a local authority to take specified steps before making a proposal (which may, in particular, include a requirement to consult or otherwise involve the council of any parish which is wholly or partly within the local authority's area, or to consult local persons".
	Surely we should trust local authorities to decide such matters. Obviously, if they do not consult and they do not demonstrate quite a lot of local support for their proposals, those proposals are less likely to succeed. Why do we need regulations to require them to consult? It just seems to be bureaucracy going too far.
	Amendment 7 would remove from the regulations the requirement to specify
	"the way in which consultation...is to be carried out."
	Surely we should allow local authorities to decide for themselves how to carry out a consultation. Why do we need regulations? This is bureaucracy and centralisation of the very worst sort.
	Amendment 8 would remove the regulations that require
	"a local authority to try to reach agreement with persons consulted under the regulations."
	It is far from clear to me what that means. As we know from dealings in this House, it is possible to get agreement between people with goodwill, but it is not always so. If local authorities want to put forward a proposal that has a lot of consensus, they should be able to do so. How can we require them to reach a particular type of agreement with people who have been consulted under the regulations?
	Amendment 9 refers to the regulation that would require
	"the local authority to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State"-

Christopher Chope: If I am wrong about that, my hon. Friend should accept responsibility for the wording of paragraph (h) and explain it to us. I was trying to be generous to him. Given that this Bill has been given Government time today, I assumed that the Government were supporting it. Perhaps they are supporting it because they are embarrassed about their own failure to deliver on the original Act, and think that this will allow them to paper over the cracks.
	Amendment 11 would remove paragraph (j), which currently requires
	"the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a report describing the progress which has been made in relation to implementation of the proposals."
	That is redundant because it is open to any Member of this House to put down a question to the Secretary of State and obtain an answer. We know from the way in which the Secretary of State and his Ministers have been responding that they have not been exactly precise in setting out the progress, but that will not be remedied by putting into regulations a requirement that they must publish a report describing progress. It would be much better to set a deadline, which is what amendment 5 proposes, of six months to sort everything out.
	Amendment 12 would leave out subsection (6) of proposed new section 5B, which extends the definition of a local authority. It says:
	"A reference in this section to a local authority is to be treated, where an order has been made under section 5C specifying persons or classes of person who may make proposals under this Act, as including a reference to those persons or classes of person."
	In other words, we are extending the definition of a local authority to include people who are not elected. My time in local government began in an era in which there were people called aldermen. I won my first election on Wandsworth council in 1974, and the first thing that happened was that the person whom I defeated was appointed alderman, which was not very good for democracy. I congratulated him and said that it was because of me that he was an alderman rather than a mere councillor. What we are doing in this Bill is extending the definition of a local authority, thereby effectively undermining the elected local authority members because we are, by implication, giving an equal or similar status to people who are not elected or accountable through the ballot box. That is a most unfortunate part of this Bill. It follows, therefore, that I am very much against proposed new section 5C, so my amendment 13 would leave it out. That brings me on to consequential amendments 14 and 15, which would follow as a result of removing proposed new section 5C. I know that you take a keen interest in such matters, Mr. Speaker, so I hope that you will appreciate that, in my submission, this Bill that falls far short of the ideal. It is a pity that it is now being pushed through at the last minute without the chance of proper considered debate. I suppose that we still have time to divide the House on one or more of these amendments.

Christopher Chope: I look forward to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. It may be that such Divisions would be a sensible way to proceed. In any event, if this Bill goes through and gets its Third Reading today, are we expecting the other place to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and Third Reading all before the end of this Sitting?
	If debating the amendments today achieves nothing else, I hope that it will draw their lordships' attention to the fact that the Bill is far from perfect. If it has the support of those on both Front Benches, there is no reason why its contents could not be brought forward in a fresh piece of legislation in the next Parliament, if indeed anything is needed. All it really needs is an expression of intent. The Bill is really asking the Government to express an intent of good will towards the original Act. In all such respects, actions speak louder than words. We have seen the delaying tactics that the Government adopted in the implementation of the original Act and the proposals put forward under it.
	I do not think that the world will be a better place for having the Bill on the statute book, but I will not go so far as to say that the ceiling would fall in as a result, because in the context of what we have to do in the House this is all relatively trivial. However, underlying it all is the fact that we have raised the expectations of hundreds, if not thousands, of people and organisations up and down the country who have put in bids under the original Act. Those bids have been shortlisted and the people are waiting for them to be resolved. Why do not we wait for those bids to be resolved before deciding on further legislation?

Alistair Burt: I do not think that the reference is exclusively to local government representative associations. The definition can be taken quite widely, and there are several representative bodies, not least the LGA and others, which might be covered by it.
	I shall run briefly through the amendments. On the amendments to clause 1, I take the Minister's view that the clause gives necessary flexibility in respect of decisions on proposals already submitted. I would like as many of those proposals as possible to be given the opportunity to come to pass. If that means that by being able to look at them in detail and decide that parts of some proposals are simply unworkable but other parts are workable, I do not think that it is a bad thing to have the flexibility that is in the Bill. That would have been wished for if the issue had been thought through when we considered the original Sustainable Communities Act. I am perfectly content that the clause gives that flexibility.
	I am not completely hostile to the idea of a timetable. It is not in the Bill because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch knows, we have to take what we can get in the wash-up. I heard what the Minister said about including a timetable in the Bill possibly constraining the flexibility of the Department, but I am not so sure that it would not be helpful to have some final deadline. Otherwise, there is a risk that it could take a long time for proposals to come through, and there could be much frustration outside. I would have been quite amenable to a timetable clause being added to the Bill to provide a final stop line to ensure that things come forward. In the meantime, I accept the assurances given by the Minister that there is a sensible timetable.
	One thing I would like to urge on my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is that when he sits in a different office in a few weeks' time, one of the first things he should do is look at the proposals that are being submitted to the Department, and produce an early timetable so that the public may know when decisions will be made, and so that friends in Local Works and others will know that an answer has been arrived at.
	It would have been nice to have seen a timetable in the Bill, but I am not prepared to press the amendment, bearing in mind the circumstances today. I am not hostile to the idea and I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is cautious about allowing the Government too much leeway: they have used the present leeway to allow things to pile up and have not yet produced any answers, despite their good intent.
	The rest of my hon. Friend's amendments were, I fear, designed to unseat the Bill, and I agree and support the arguments made by the Minister. There are aspects of the guidelines on how local authorities might consult that are not too onerous on them, and one or two are very important.
	A specific aim of those who brought the idea of the Bill to me, when I was drawn sufficiently high up in the Members' ballot, was to include a reference to parish councils in the Bill, and, through that definition of parish councils, a reference to town councils. I have five town councils in my constituency, and some 54 parish councils. They are of immense importance in rural or semi-rural constituencies such as mine, and, as my hon. Friend was generous enough to acknowledge, parish councils are a firm part of the bedrock of our democracy. They very much wanted to be included formally in the Bill because, although we would like to think that local authorities always work as we would want them to-another regulation deals with how consultation might be carried out-it is not always the case.
	My hon. Friend made a fair point about over-regulation. It is a point that he makes often, and his concerns are shared by many colleagues on this side of the House. However, at one and the same time, he wants a regulation to ensure that the Minister and the Department deal with things by a particular time, yet seeks to deny a regulation that would encourage authorities to consult in a particular way. My argument is that, occasionally, one wants regulation to do a particular job. In this case, encouraging active involvement with parish and town councils is exceptionally important, and I am pleased to see it in the Bill. Another regulation that is very important is getting authorities to try to find agreement with those who make proposals.
	My final point on the amendments as a whole and on the Bill, in case there is no time for Third Reading, is that we have learned much in the past few years about the sense of unease and dissatisfaction outside this House with how the process of governance occasionally works. I believe that we in this place have all learned that we need to be as flexible as possible in responding to an ever better informed public. The inspiration for the original Act was the sense of frustration that people felt as they saw their immediate environment change around them. They felt that they had no say over what was happening. Their concerns included worries about a ghost-town Britain in which the high street would change and local and rural facilities would be lost. It seemed that no one in power would accept responsibility, and that nothing could be done.
	The Sustainable Communities Act arose out of that sense of frustration. Now that it has been passed, that sense of frustration has eased. People see that the different ways in which to engage the Government, their local authority and the community around them are good things that will not go away. Those of us on both sides of the House will have to learn to engage with that kind of community involvement far more than we used to in the past.
	Yes, the bottom line for local authorities is a good, well-run Conservative local authority that will deliver better for the people than anything else. However, under the auspices of such authorities, close working with communities and the inspiration that has been triggered by the Sustainable Communities Act and by this little amendment Bill will do the process no harm.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will withdraw the amendments. His concerns are legitimate, but perhaps they have been eased by what the Minister and I have said. I hope that the amendments are either withdrawn or rejected by the House, because I believe that the Bill as it stands will do its job and be effective for communities for many years to come.

Bob Neill: I echo that concluding passage because it encapsulates why the official Opposition support the Bill and hope that it will pass today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), having given the matter his usual, diligent scrutiny, will withdraw the amendment. I endorse the support for the outside bodies that gave rise to the Bill and for Ron Bailey and his colleagues in particular.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raised legitimate points, but it is not necessary that the regulations under the Bill be interpreted by the Government in a prescriptive or onerous way. The Local Government Association's warning against that is legitimate. I assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that a Conservative Government would ensure that the regulations were interpreted in a proportionate and light-touch way and would put in place the timetable that he sought-whether it is in the Bill or not-because the principle behind it is important.

Barbara Follett: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	With the leave of the House, I would like to reiterate the flexibility that the Bill gives us to carry out this important work, and the fact that the amendments will reduce that flexibility and make that work more difficult.

Christopher Chope: May I thank everyone who has participated in this debate? I thank my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for their generous comments. I am not sure that they are well deserved, but there is something to be said for looking at these Bills in some detail, which is what we have been trying to do today.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough for what he said about amendment 5. Whether we trust the Government is a topical question at the moment. Yesterday we debated why we are not going to have the Back Bench Business Committee. We trusted the Government and were let down. I propose to divide the House on amendment 5 because it will put pressure on the Government to come forward within six months with answers to the bids made, often with tremendous effort and time, by members of local communities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 1.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

William Cash: On referendums on reform, does the Minister for Justice accept that, historically, the Liberal Democrats-Lloyd George, for example-or indeed any other party were in favour of proportional representation when it suited them and went into reverse when it did not. At its heart, that has little to do with the sense of fairness that they try to generate and much more to do with whether they can secure political advantage at any given time.

Jack Straw: Indeed, Europe has PR too.
	It is a matter of historical record that until late 1923 the Labour party was the third party, and was in favour of proportional representation. The Liberal party-as it then was-which was the first or second party, was in favour of first past the post. In 1924, Pauline conversions both ways took place. The Labour party suddenly decided that it saw every merit in first past the post, and the Liberals, who slipped into third position, where they have remained ever since, were suddenly in favour of proportional representation-interesting conversions! However, although the alternative vote is an improvement to the system we have, it is not proportional representation.
	I greatly regret the fact that we have had to remove certain aspects of the Bill, particularly on the alternative vote and the removal of hereditary peers. To accommodate the Conservative party, we offered an arrangement by which all existing hereditaries would in addition be deemed life peers, and a provision whereby, on the death of a hereditary-cum-life peer, the leader of a party or group-this mainly applies to the Conservative party-would have a right to nominate a replacement. There was, therefore, no question of any gratuitous reduction in their numbers. That, however, was not considered acceptable.
	Given the constraints on each party, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and his colleagues for the constructive discussions that were held, and place on record my appreciation of the co-operation of the leaders of the three parties, the Cross-Bench groups and a number of individuals-Members and peers-with whom I met and talked all through last night.
	The first group of Lords amendments is on the public service. We got the civil service changes through, which was very important. Lord Norton of Louth tabled a series of amendments. I accepted amendment 1, and did my best to accept the others where possible. The amendment sets out that in managing the civil service,
	"the Minister for the Civil Service shall have regard to the need to ensure that civil servants who advise Ministers are aware of the constitutional significance of Parliament and of the conventions governing the relationship between Parliament and Her Majesty's Government."
	I told Lord Norton that I strongly support the amendment. He has found a wording that meets the need. A striking feature of my 35 years of contact with officials and of working in Government in the '70s is that the number of officials who understand and appreciate what happens here has gone down. We have to reverse that, and the amendment is an important way of doing so.
	Other changes remove chapter 3, on Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland, and chapter 4 on Crown employment and nationality. I appreciate that there is some concern about that, but we could not achieve it.

Evan Harris: Will the Minister explain whether "could not achieve it" means just that the Conservatives did not want it? As I understand it, the Minister said that a deal has to be done and they have a veto. Will he explain that in each case, because they probably would want to know what the issue was?

Dominic Grieve: indicated assent.

David Howarth: The way in which the Bill has been handled throughout has been catastrophic. The Government delayed the Committee stage in this House, randomly extended it and failed to secure the Bill in the House of Lords, for which they are entirely to blame. Especially on items such as the referendum clauses, the question that occurs to Opposition Members is: did the Government ever intend this to be anything but a political manoeuvre that would inevitably end in an announcement by the Prime Minister of one of his famous dividing lines, rather than a serious attempt to change the electoral system through a referendum? I very much doubt whether the Government were ever serious about that. That throws into grave doubt their seriousness about this issue. They made the promise in 1997 and they are making it again this year, and it has the same validity this year as it did then.
	There is also a serious point about the relationship between this House and the other place. As Lord Campbell-Savours pointed out, the House of Lords was quite content to leave in the IPSA aspects of the Bill, because they concerned this House. Surely the same applies to the referendum clauses, which relate to the voting system for this House. I do not think that the way in which Members of the House of Commons are elected has anything to do with the House of Lords.
	The other things that have gone from the Bill are equally catastrophic. The House of Lords reform aspects of the Bill throw into doubt the commitment of the whole of Parliament to the reform of Parliament and the return to high standards in public life. That is surely the most serious part, for the reputation of politics, of the wash-up process.
	From the point of view of my party especially, the failure to reform the law about protests surrounding this place is catastrophic. The Prime Minister promised, virtually on his first day in office, to change the law, but he has failed to deliver.

Evan Harris: I am glad that my hon. Friend makes that point, because other legislative vehicles that have received Royal Assent could have been used. The Government said, "Oh no. Don't worry. We have this Bill. That will do it. We have time." Then, because of the delay that my hon. Friend identified, they wilfully reneged on the promise to repeal the provision, which they could have done in another way, as we and the Joint Committee have argued.

William Cash: I shall gladly follow that suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer in particular, therefore, to the civil service reforms. One or two things were not included-for example, it is a great pity that the rules relating to evidence before Select Committees have not been tackled. They might be more a matter of convention and of Standing Orders, but when we require civil servants to carry out their duties with integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality, the fact that special advisers are not required to carry out their duties with objectivity or impartiality is relevant. That might be a statement of the obvious, but sometimes special advisers and their political functions create difficulties. Similarly, in the House, although we engage in political activities, as part of our duties we must deal with some matters with a degree of objectivity and impartiality; that is no less the case for special advisers, because questions of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality all rather tend to merge into one another. It is a pity that some matters have been differentiated in that way.
	No one in the debate has dwelt on the question of the House of Lords. I simply say, "Here we go again." I commented on the questions of proportional representation, the alternative vote and electoral reform. I accept what the Secretary of State said about alternative votes not being the same as proportional representation in a precise sense, but all such questions are to do with fiddling with the mechanism and the feeling of the choice of the person who goes into a polling booth-or does not do so-to exercise his freedom of choice. Playing around with that is very dangerous and the reason for retaining the existing system is inviolate; it should be kept. It is about the essence of an individual's choice and that should not be reallocated according to a system of shuffling.
	My party has been committed to the idea of an elected House of Lords, although I notice that those issues have now been put on the back burner. We have been talking about the matter since the mid-19th century; a certain relation of mine by the name of John Bright was calling for the abolition of the House of Lords even in those days. I am not sure that I would call for its abolition, because it does a fantastically good job, but I have serious doubts about whether it can continue without being elected. I am sorry that the relevant provisions have gone. I have no doubt that the mavericks who were referred to earlier were among those who were determined to maintain the House of Lords in its present state-much as I want to pay tribute to the incredibly hard work that it did. When I was in the shadow Cabinet I found that those people did amazing amounts of hard work. However, the question is about more than that: it is a matter of principle.
	On the subject of treaties, I do not think that clause 24 should be exclusively devoted to the question of ratification. Consent is the issue and therefore the clause should be about treaties being laid before Parliament before consent. It is consent that really matters, and ratification is a much more complex question, which I do not intend to go into now, although I took up the issue when I took the Foreign Secretary to judicial review over ratification of the Lisbon treaty, so I feel strongly about it.
	The general point on which I want to conclude is that there is far too much government, and the Bill retains far too much of the presidential nature of the direction in which our governmental system is going. The Bill deals with important matters, but there is a need for much deeper radical reform of the connection between the Government, Parliament and the voter than it contains. I would not want to dismiss it, but it does not grapple with the real question at the heart of what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, and the significant number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who are here first as parliamentarians, know is going wrong: the disconnection between Parliament and the people on the question not just of allowances, but of the manner in which the Government impose their will. I spoke about that in the debate on the effectiveness of Parliament in Westminster Hall yesterday. The Bill does not deal properly with those questions and we must amend the Standing Orders to restrain the extent to which the Government have control over what happens. The Back-Bench and House committees, and the reassertion of the rights of Back Benchers-

William Cash: I am glad to take note of that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not transgress again, but I wanted to get that on the record.
	I feel strongly that we are moving into a new phase of politics, with all the Facebooks, Twitters and the rest. The question of disconnection remains important, but I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on the extent to which we have made progress in removing some of the more objectionable things from the Bill. I just do not think that that has gone far enough.

Dominic Grieve: As I indicated earlier, I must claim some responsibility for the fact that the clause has been removed. I will briefly set out the reasons for that.
	The clause was introduced at the very last minute in the passage of the Bill through this House and-picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)-it was my view and that of my hon. Friends that the proposal for a referendum was in the nature of an electoral stunt by the Government. The hon. Gentleman said that this matter goes back to 1997; for all I know, it goes back even earlier. I fear that his party has been the victim on numerous occasions of electoral stunts on the alternative vote by the Government and that it has been given tantalising promises which I hazard to suggest will never materialise.
	My party did not think very much of these proposals for a referendum, all the more so-I make this point strongly-because it was proposed that we enact a provision that would come into effect in a completely new Parliament without any opportunity for that new Parliament to consider whether it agreed. Even if the complexion of the Parliament changed completely but the Government remained in office, it would have been possible to hold the referendum, notwithstanding the fact that a majority of this House might well consider it unnecessary and undesirable. For those reasons, we think that it was an ill judged proposal.
	We have indicated, and will no doubt debate during the election campaign, ways of improving the electoral system in this country. My party has some very clear ideas about reducing the size of this House and evening out the size of constituencies so as to make the first-past-the-post system work more fairly and more effectively. We intend to proceed with that and we will have an opportunity to debate it with the electorate and, indeed, the other parties during the campaign. We objected to the proposals, and in the circumstances nobody should be surprised by the fact that, when we were asked during the wash-up negotiations whether we considered them acceptable, we said, as we had done throughout the passage of the Bill, that we considered them to be an electoral stunt and did not wish them to be in a constitutional Bill of this nature.

Evan Harris: Was my hon. Friend struck, as I was, by the assertion by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that the current first-past-the-post electoral system can be made fairer by changing constituency sizes and making them more equal? To cite the words of David Mitchell in a recent column in  The Observer, is the process of trying to make this electoral system fairer like throwing a slice of ham into the Grand Canyon to make it more of a sandwich?

William Cash: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the interesting piece on the "Today" programme during which John Curtice and a number of others were quoted about the fact that the Conservative party is at a grave disadvantage in the current system? It is loaded against us, and yet we are concerned to maintain first past the post precisely because it is about an individual in the polling booth exercising their freedom of choice, which will not be reshuffled by a lot of artificial mechanisms.

Graham Allen: Will my hon. Friend put it on record that it was in fact the Conservative party that refused to allow the provisions on PSHE-or life skills as I prefer to call it-to be included in the Bill? Further, does he agree that the people who will suffer from basic emotional and social skills not being in the curriculum will not be those who go to expensive private schools, or even high attaining schools, but pupils in constituencies such as mine-poorer places where generally there is not high educational achievement? They are the people who most need this to be in the national curriculum, rather than merely being something that it is nice to have. Will my hon. Friend put on record who is responsible for this not being in the Bill?

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend has been a great campaigner for this type of early intervention and work in schools, whether we call it PSHE or, as he prefers, life skills. The legal advice I have received is that it is not possible to do what he wants, however. We have spent a long time talking to others to see if we can find a way forward, but it was not possible to do so. Therefore, with much regret, we find ourselves in the current situation. I hope that after the next election we will be in a position to return to this issue and ensure that we secure the statutory provision that both my hon. Friend and I want.

Nick Gibb: I thank the Minister for the concessions that he has made, which will remove clauses that posed a direct threat to the professional autonomy of teachers and that would have heaped mounds of bureaucracy on to teachers and head teachers and threatened the rights of parents to withdraw their children from sex education and to educate their children at home.
	The first element of this bureaucratic Bill, which we are happy to oppose, is a series of excessively prescriptive pupil and parent guarantees. Scores of guarantees were set out in the appendix to the White Paper and in a consultation document, with 38 tick boxes for teachers and more time taken away from the classroom. For example, guarantee 2.2 states:
	"the curriculum is tailored to every child's needs so that every pupil receives the support they need to secure good literacy, numeracy and ICT skills, learn another language and about the humanities, science, technology and the arts."
	But given that 16 per cent. of 11-year-olds do not reach level 4 in English and 9 per cent. of boys leave primary school without even reaching any grade in the English key stage 2 standard assessment tests, that leaves scope for huge amounts of litigation.
	The key to raising standards is not to pass a law guaranteeing things, but to understand the reasons for underperformance and to address them. If passing a law guaranteeing outcomes was the answer, we could cure world hunger and all known diseases this afternoon in the House. The key to raising standards in our schools is not through bureaucracy, but through greater freedom for professionals and by expanding the academy programme, with academy providers such as Absolute Return for Kids and the Harris Federation encouraged to establish more schools in some of the most deprived parts of the country.
	These clauses would have piled additional bureaucracy on to teachers and head teachers and exposed them to the threat of expensive and time-consuming legal action. John Dunford from the Association of School and College Leaders said that those guarantees
	"will take statute into realms it has never previously covered. Instead of the increasingly diverse system that the Government has often said that it wants to encourage, England will have one of the most centrally prescriptive systems in the world...School leaders are extremely concerned that these 'guarantees' will turn into a whingers' charter".
	We wholeheartedly agree with ASCL's concerns and are therefore pleased that the Government have abandoned those clauses.
	On one-to-one tuition, which the Minister touched on, we also strongly believe that it is needed for children who are falling behind, and we support that approach-that is what good schools do-but best practice is not spread by passing a law prescribing a whole raft of centrally crafted guarantees that people would then seek to enforce. We need to get away from such micro-prescription and give professionals and schools the autonomy that they need to flourish as professionals. That is how to raise standards. The Secretary of State is keen on his dividing lines in politics-I do not blame the Minister-but we believe that education policy should not be designed to be used as a tool in party politics. Education policy is about ensuring that we have the right landscape to enable schools to provide the highest quality of education for our children.
	On home-school agreements, it is right to abandon clauses 4 and 5, which would have created bespoke, individualised home-school agreements, negotiated for each child and each parent in a school and rewritten annually. We believe in strengthening home-school agreements, but not in turning them into a bureaucratic nightmare for head teachers. The Government's proposals faced widespread opposition. For example, ASCL called the idea "unrealistic" and pointed out that
	"such a proposal will be wholly impractical in secondary schools, which may have over 1,000 pupils, and will consume a great deal of school resource."
	Again, that is our view exactly, and we are pleased to see those clauses go.
	On areas of learning, the proposed changes to the primary curriculum-with the introduction of six highly prescriptive areas of learning, each with voluminous programmes of study, each of which has a multitude of objectives-is anything but flexible. The English programme of study alone has 84 objectives. Maths has 76. Clause 10 would have been a major misstep, and we are happy to see it fall as well.
	The proposed introduction of personal, social, health and economic education was one of the most controversial aspects of the Bill. We have always strongly supported parents' rights to withdraw their children from sex and relationships lessons, and we have refused to compromise in upholding those rights. No one should ride roughshod over the rights of parents to bring up their children in the way they see fit. Ultimately, however small a minority wish to withdraw their children from such lessons, it should be up to the parent, rather than the Secretary of State and the Minister, to decide whether they want their children under 16 to attend lessons on sex and relationships.

Evan Harris: The opt-out already exists in religious education and collective worship, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, but case law now shows that when children become competent to make up their own minds, it is an infringement of their rights for parents to withdraw them, or not to withdraw them, from collective worship-for example, compulsory prayer. Under his logic, should parents who feel passionately about the origins of the universe and believed in young-earth creationism have the right to withdraw their children from biology lessons, for example, for the reasons that he gives?

Nick Gibb: Parents have a right to withdraw their children from schools and to home-educate their children, which is another right that the Bill will infringe. I do not believe that creationism should be in the school science curriculum-the hon. Gentleman is right about that-but parents ultimately have the right to educate their children at home if they wish.
	As a result of our continued opposition to clause 14, the Government have chosen to withdraw all four clauses that relate to PSHE. We would have been happy to discuss PSHE being part of the curriculum, and we are therefore extremely surprised that the Government have chosen to withdraw entirely all four clauses. If we are elected to form the next Government, the role of PSHE in the curriculum is an issue that we would address and consult on. As my noble Friend Baroness Perry said in another place last night,
	"It would be almost impossible to find a secondary school, and very rare to find a primary school, that does not teach personal, social and health education."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2010; Vol. 718, c. 1587.]

Vernon Coaker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a couple of comments.
	It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Both of us have worked long and hard on a number of different issues. I pay tribute to the work that he has done, not only in respect of education but in respect of science and the importance of evidence-based policy making. I appeared before his Select Committee when I had ministerial responsibility for drugs education policy, and we had a fairly frank exchange of views, but I hope that that led to better policy.
	I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) is present. He served on the Committee, and observed that it was the first time he had served on a Bill Committee for a number of years. Although those who served on the Committee did not always agree with me, I think that that was an important finish to this part of my hon. Friend's career. He has always worked tirelessly in supporting support state education and emphasising the importance of giving opportunities to all young people.
	Let me deal with a couple of points that have been raised in the debate. We did not intend to oppose home education. We strongly support it, and the right of people to educate their children at home. The clauses that have now been withdrawn drew attention to the need to know more precisely where children were. That was the point of the compulsory registration scheme. If people were to ask whether the state or local authorities knew where all young people were, the answer would sometimes be no, and I think that that raises important questions. We did not wish to end people's right to educate their children at home; we were merely suggesting that there should be a better understanding of what was going on.
	Clause 11 specifies the content of PSHE, which includes sex and relationships education. Clause 13 amends SRE provisions. Clause 11 also makes PSHE part of the national curriculum. Clause 14 currently allows withdrawal from a subject that is not part of the national curriculum. We must therefore change the right of withdrawal in the clause as part of the package. I do not want to withdraw the PSHE clauses, but I have been told that it is simply impossible to separate the provisions. If the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) were in my place, he would have to take the legal advice that he was given. I can only hope that whoever is responsible for these matters in the next Parliament will return to the issue. The hon. Gentleman indicated that if he were to be the next Minister and were in my position, he would bring the clauses back. I know that his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) does not agree, but I think this is an important provision that we should not lose.
	Our short debate has made clear the choices that will be before the country, and our different views on education. It is clear from what has been said by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that the Conservatives believe in a free market education philosophy. We believe in state education and a comprehensive education system, and the election will no doubt be fought on that along with a number of other important public policy issues.
	 Lords amendment  1  agreed to.
	 Lords amendments  2 to 34  agreed to.

Phil Willis: May I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) about the Minister and her colleagues? It is a while since I sat on a Standing Committee, but they were incredibly generous in their approach throughout, as was the Minister herself. I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman, who was also incredibly courteous and well informed in presenting his points on behalf of the Conservative Opposition.
	The sadness for me is that the Bill was introduced probably three or four years too late. What it needed was the new Department-I have to compliment the Prime Minister on one thing: setting the Department up-which has been effective in looking at some of the core issues facing our society. I compliment both the Secretary of State and the Minister on bringing those issues forward. Our party has had a number of major concerns during the passage of the Bill, some of which were, to be fair, addressed in part in the House of Lords-I am thinking particularly of the determination of what fuel poverty is. Let us remember that we had a discussion in Committee about that definition. The Minister was quite adamant that we could go no further, but since then there has been some movement on the issue in the House of Lords, for which we thank the Minister.
	However, the difficultly is that an incoming Government, of whatever persuasion, will immediately have to return to the issue, because if they do not, we will not be able to move forward in what I see as three phases. The first issue is carbon capture and storage. Quite frankly, a huge amount of Government effort will be required to make it come to pass. We have had some movement on piping and some thought has gone into the issue of clusters, but that will need to be put into legislation, otherwise, frankly, it will not work.
	One area that is missing-we genuinely hoped that the Minister would bring it back in the House of Lords-is this. When will the relationship appear between the installation of the carbon capture demonstrators and what will happen to the disposal of carbon dioxide in the North sea? That relationship-a relationship with those who currently have licences to operate in the North sea and who have an obligation to preserve the aquifers in a state in which they can be used-needs to be created, because once that goes and the whole thing collapses, then we will be in a totally different ballgame. We ought to be able to use this moment as a huge business opportunity and fill the aquifers in the North sea with carbon dioxide from a whole range of countries-particularly those in Europe, but also those further afield-using compression techniques.
	The only other point that I wish to make is about this whole business of feed-in tariffs. What concerns me is this. Just this weekend I came back from my small farm on the west coast of Ireland. I was contemplating the discussions that we had with the Minister about those sources of energy other than gas that people use for their main heating. As I filled up my tank in Ireland, just as I fill it up in north Yorkshire, it struck me that the cost of delivering liquid gas at the moment is astronomical. When it comes to fuel poverty, the need to get people to think of ways in which they can generate their own heat and electricity and feed it back into the grid is crucial, but we also need to consider how to broaden the use of fuel poverty to include those areas that do not have access to natural gas.
	The Bill is certainly worth putting on the statute back before this Parliament is dissolved, and I hope that when an incoming Government return to this matter, they will treat it with the same compassion and sense of importance that the Minister has shown, and that we can move on to the next stage as quickly as possible.

Joan Ruddock: I thank the hon. Members for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for their very kind remarks. I appreciate very much what they have said and may I return the compliment? All of us who have worked on the Bill and in our wider debates in this place have done so with a very proper concern for the environment, for the security of our energy supplies, and for the people who have to pay for the fuel that they use and the fuel poverty that some of them experience. I am pleased to have been the Minister in charge of this important Bill. It has been debated seriously by Members on both sides of the House, for which I am grateful.
	The hon. Member for Wealden took his opportunity, as he was entitled to do, to indicate many other things that he wished could have been included in the Bill. However, except for the matters of which he spoke where the Government conceded and made some improvements, the Government resisted those. The Bill was focused on achieving two things: first, carbon capture and storage and how it might be financially supported and organised in this country, and, secondly, the introduction of social price support mechanisms.
	These small amendments are procedural and relate to the social price support mechanisms, so they do not allow us to widen the Bill's scope and bring in any of the new kinds of provisions that the hon. Gentleman would like. He spoke about the green deal that the Conservative party has put forward, but he knows well that the Government have proposed something that is bigger, wider and more costly than that, and which is embodied in our home energy management policy under the warm homes, greener homes strategy.
	With regard to the strategy for carbon capture and storage and clusters, we very much agree with all parts of the House that clusters are to be considered and possibly encouraged. We want the best strategic position to be adopted for carbon capture and storage, and we agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough on the potential for CCS. We believe that the discussions between those in control of North sea aquifers, the Government and the private companies that are developing CCS with Government support, are vital. As we have said, and as the Bill provides, we need to demonstrate that we can not only capture the gas, but transport it safely and store it safely for as long as is necessary.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about the cost of fuel such as liquid gas for home heating. We are sensitive to this point and we are looking for ways to enable people to reduce their bills and have more secure supplies at lower cost through such means as air source heat pumps, which would enable people to obtain heat through a completely new technology. That is now well tested and we think that it can be a really good substitute for those who are off the gas grid. There are also ground source heat pumps. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have incentivised through the feed-in tariffs the provision of systems such as solar PV, where substantial payments can be made to those who generate their own electricity. Next year, we will introduce the heat incentive scheme, which should be of particular benefit to the kind of homes that he describes off the gas grid, where the incentives would particularly benefit those who move from sources such as LPG. I hope that we can promise the hon. Gentleman that much good will come forward when we are returned to Government.
	I can tell the hon. Member for Wealden that we have no plans for amending the definition of fuel poverty in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. Indeed, the Act allows for such an amendment to be made by negative resolution. This Bill does not cut across that. What we do in this Bill and the amendments that I have described is simply a matter for this Bill and the definition there. When providing for a social price support mechanism, we do not want it to be available only to those who by definition would come out of fuel poverty. Of course, some will, but some will be helped to do a little better and some may be prevented from going into fuel poverty. That is the intention of the price support mechanism and these small amendments make all of that possible.
	It has been an immense pleasure to be a Minister in the new Department of Energy and Climate Change. I believe that the whole House feels that setting up that Department was a correct decision, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough reiterated today. For those of us who have worked in the Department, I can say that it has been a whirlwind of a Department, which has enabled the country to begin that absolute change in the way in which we generate and use our energy, and at the same time tackle the threat of dangerous climate change.
	 Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
	 Lords amendments 2 to 9 agreed to.

Mark Hoban: I welcome the amendments and the way in which the Minister has responded to the concerns that have been expressed during the scrutiny in this place and the other place. He highlighted amendment 24, for which I am grateful. One of the concerns that we had was that consumers did not know about enforcement action being taken against a firm regulated by the FSA and that that might put them at a disadvantage in dealing with those firms. Indeed, there was an incident that we cited in Committee relating to a mortgage company that was being investigated by the FSA on some of its repossession proceedings. If that information had been in the public domain sooner, that might have helped some people who had mortgages with that company. We welcome the constructive approach that the Minister has taken.
	Let me focus very briefly on three areas. We want to see consumers given adequate protection when the product that they have brought or the advice that they have received is defective. That is a concern that we have expressed in a number of different ways over the course of this Bill but also in other wider reforms that we have set out. It is important that when new safeguards are introduced there should be proper scrutiny and consultation, so that we know that the safeguards will work effectively and proportionately.
	We welcome the decision to drop clauses 18 to 25 on collective action. This gives the next Government the chance to consult properly on these changes and on the generic court rules that need to be introduced on collective actions and again on the detailed regulations that would then be used to apply those generic court rules to individual claims under financial services legislation. It also gives the next Government an opportunity to see how these rules dovetail with the existing protection for consumers and the consumer redress schemes. It also gives a Government the opportunity to think how collective proceedings should be applied to the whole area of consumer protection and not just to the narrow subject of financial services. The Government's decision to drop these clauses creates the opportunity for further debate, which will benefit both consumers and industry.
	On clause 26, we welcome some of the changes that the Government have made, particularly the change to the commencement date. Rather like collective proceedings, this is an area where there was insufficient consultation with the industry or consumer groups. There is an underlying concern about how the FSA would use these powers in practice. It might be the case that with a longer period of thought and deliberation the industry and consumer groups could become more comfortable with the way in which the FSA would seek to use these powers in practice. The amendment creates a breathing space to enable that to happen.
	Let me make one thing very clear. It is apparent that the powers that this provision replaces-section 404 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000-are unsatisfactory, because those powers had never been used. It is also clear that defaulting back to the Financial Ombudsman Service to resolve large scale mis-selling claims is also unsatisfactory. A solution needs to be found to resolve these issues and I think we are confident that we can and should make progress on this. Fundamentally, the best way to resolve these issues is through having the right mechanisms in place to deal with the cure while having the right regulatory approach and structure in place to deal with prevention, too.
	I am pleased to see that amendment 43 has been introduced. The Minister did not choose to mention it, but it reflects amendment 48, which I tabled in Committee. The Minister was rather sceptical at that stage about the amendment and he said that as an expert in evaluation and someone who has studied this topic over 20 years, it was not really necessary because organisations would do that automatically. As someone who has not studied evaluation for 20 years, I am pleased to see that I can have an impact as a layman-perhaps through the machinations at the other end of the Palace, but the effect is none the less welcome for that. Clearly, there is good evidence for the impact that I have made in the outcome of this Bill.
	Let me end by wishing the Minister well, as he is leaving the House at the election. He and I have sparred on a number of Bills over the course of the last couple of years. I have always found him straightforward to deal with-that might not be what the deputy Chief Whip might like to hear-and prepared to engage in the debate in Committee in a serious and thoughtful way. I am sure that whatever he chooses to do after he leaves this place, he will be as successful there as he has been in this House.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to probably the final intervention that he will take in this House. In the absence of this power, the FSA is still engaged in debate in the European Union and with the European Commission on technical issues to do with implementation of say, Solvency 2. Lord Turner sits on committees of the Financial Stability Board. This makes no difference to the FSA's ability to take part in international discussions. It has done so without this power being in the FSMA. It is an entirely cosmetic and pointless change.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am pleased that I gave way, because that demonstrates the laid-back attitude of the Conservatives to this issue. Of course, the FSA has been acting in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes, but clause 8 places a duty on it. It reinforces its power. It sends messages abroad. It means that the FSA can go thumping the table internationally with full confidence and mandate of a statute. That is the difference. Statutory regulation stiffens the sinews, either of the FSA or the people who serve it, and underlines the importance and gravity of what they are doing. To say that the provision is not necessary is irresponsible and wrong.
	I do not want to labour the point, other than to put on the record that removing clause 8 was a mistake. The Minister should be blushing, because the Government would have retained the provision, but the Conservatives insisted that it came out before the legislation could receive Royal Assent. The Conservatives are to blame for taking out a prudent and sensible clause.
	The Minister may be able to help us on my second point. In proceedings in this House on 25 January and in another place on 23 February there was discussion of the credit unions of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), supported by the hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for North Down (Lady Hermon), Lord Bew and most sensible people, were led to believe that the measure would be a vehicle to empower the credit unions of Northern Ireland and give them parity with those in the rest of Great Britain. We thought they would be put under the FSA and allowed to provide financial products comparable to those in London, including child trust funds, ATMs and so forth.
	Lord Myners was certainly sympathetic and, judging from the  Official Report, the Minister indicated some support. Given his background as a Northern Ireland Minister, my hon. Friend will be aware that although only 1 per cent. of people in England use credit unions, they are used by 26 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland, yet they are denied parity of treatment with the rest of Great Britain. Furthermore, they do not have the assurances and guarantees arising from the oversight of the FSA.
	I am bewildered and dismayed. All the political parties in Northern Ireland are in agreement on the issue, as are political parties in this House, including the Labour party in Northern Ireland and the Democratic Unionist party, except for the Conservative and Unionist party. By instructing the Minister that there should be no progress on the provision, the Conservative and Unionist party, which is standing in the election, is denying the people of Northern Ireland facilities for their credit unions. The Conservative party is doing a grave disservice to the 26 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland, across the political spectrum, who want their credit unions enhanced. The hon. Member for Fareham is looking anxious. Does he want to respond?

Colin Breed: I rise to support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). At one stage, many of us thought that the Bill might never come back here at all. Considerable work has been done on it by a lot of people and it includes some important aspects for consumers, so it would have been a great shame if it had not proceeded.
	The provisions are reasonable given that there has been relatively little consultation as a result of the speed that was being required to push the Bill through. In many respects, the Bill is part 1 of something that will continue to be looked at as we impose regulation and supervision of financial services. I am happy to support the amendments and to allow the Bill to go through.
	I do not have the same concerns about clause 8 as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). It had some belt and braces aspects and would not have had quite the impact he expected. Co-operation will clearly have to take place in that area. We shall not be able to introduce things off our own bat; we shall have to seek international support and co-operation and, as the hon. Member for Fareham said, there are already provisions in current legislation. However, certain aspects will have to be tightened up by the next Administration as they begin to push the measure through.
	When the Treasury Committee visited Ireland a little while ago, we were amazed at the amount of credit union activity, but the mechanisms by which credit unions were administered or supervised were not raised with us. I am somewhat puzzled about the matter, so if the Minister has any helpful suggestions that would be good. It was certainly not something that the Committee considered was part of this legislation.
	I echo the words of the hon. Member for Fareham about the Minister. We have had a good working relationship on various Committees, not least because of the way the Minister presented information and was always prepared to get us the additional information we required. I, too, wish him well in the future.

William Cash: I want to speak briefly on clause 6. Nothing is more important than that people understand exactly, as it says in the amendment,
	"the desirability of enhancing the understanding and knowledge of members of the public of financial matters (including the UK financial system),"
	and for a very good reason. People have just been through the most cathartic experience; they have seen their savings and their jobs disintegrate as a result of mistakes, and sometimes of thoroughly misleading behaviour, by many people who ought to have known better. That goes for the Government as well as for the supervisory authorities and the companies and banks concerned.
	People should have proper information and understand it and, if necessary, be given in school some overall idea of the extent to which they are dependent on the financial system. Something in the order of 20 per cent. of our entire economy turns on financial services, so it would not be amiss for people to have proper financial education and understanding. That provision is extremely important and useful.
	Unlike the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I am delighted that clause 8 has been left out. I have taken a close interest in the Bill. I have written quite a lot about it in the  Financial Times and other publications. From the beginning, I have made a constant assault on the idea that the City of London should be put under threat by European institutions-from the de Larosière report to the latest regulations, which I followed as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee from the beginning to the end. The Minister knows of my interest and of my condemnation of the extent to which the City of London has been put under threat as a result of European and/or global international regulation.
	Even this morning, on the "Today" programme, the Prime Minister was still going on about the virtues of his great contribution to undermining-he would not put it like that, but it is a fact-our ability to run our own affairs. Given the number of jobs and the amount of gross domestic product dependent on the City, I am completely against the requirements under clause 8, and that is a very good reason why it should be left out. The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to its power, but he did not quite emphasise enough the fact that it would have provided for a legal duty, enforceable by judicial review. The hon. Gentleman is a good friend of mine, so I can tell from his expression how and to what extent he approves of clause 8.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham knows perfectly well, irrespective of whether the clause is in or out, section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 will require us to comply with the financial services regulations imposed by directives and decisions taken by the European jurisdiction. That is one reason why my United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill remains important. We have to have a proper adjustment, so that we co-operate with other countries. I have never been against that. As I have said many times before: European trade, yes; European Government, no. It is for this House to decide the extent to which we have proper regulation, and, whether we engage in agreements with other European countries or not, we in this House must have the last say.
	Clause 8, as far as our courts are concerned, would have made an imposition upon the Financial Services Authority over and above the requirements of European regulations and directives. The clause would have gone to the Supreme Court at some point or other, when somebody challenged it, and it would have been an imposition-imposed by this Parliament as a mandatory requirement.
	Therefore, I am glad that the clause has gone, but I remain concerned about our underlying requirement under the European Communities Act 1972 to comply with the financial regulations that are streaming out of the European Union like a tsunami. Through majority voting, they will effectively hand over control of the City of London to the axis of France and Germany-Frankfurt and Paris. Nikolas Sarkozy has been quite clear from the beginning about their overriding objection to the Anglo-Saxon methods of dealing with financial services, and about their objective of taking over the City of London. That is one of their objectives, and the same goes for the Germans in Frankfurt.  [ Interruption. ] I love to watch the deputy Chief Whip of the Government-for-the-time-being laughing about that.

Ian Pearson: I shall briefly respond to the points that have been made during this debate.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about clause 8 and disagree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and his comments on it. I agree that dropping the clause will not prevent the Financial Services Authority from engaging in international forums, and the fact that it has not had its role formalised is disappointing. It is very strange that such an important activity has not been formally reflected on a statutory basis in the FSA's objectives.
	I heard what my hon. Friend said about Northern Ireland credit unions, and I share his strong desire to see them come under the auspices of the FSA. That is why, during Commons stages of the Bill, I said to Members that, if it were possible for the Northern Ireland Assembly to agree on an approach, we would see what could be done in the Bill. Lord Myners tabled a new clause in the other place, but there was no opportunity to debate it. Primary legislation is not actually needed to bring about those changes, but it is important to send the right signal, and I hope that the next Government will continue to look at the regulatory reform of credit unions.
	The House will be aware that there is a joint Treasury-Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment consultation on proposals for the regulatory reform of credit unions in Northern Ireland, and that was launched on 30 March. As responses are received, I am sure that it will be possible-early in the next Parliament, I hope-to bring in any necessary changes at an early opportunity.
	The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) made three main points. On, collective proceedings, the House is now aware that the amendments would drop clauses 18 to 25 from the Bill. However, I stress that, in terms of collective proceedings and providing for the rights of individuals collectively to take action, there is an important principle that needs to be pursued. We explored the issue in some detail in Committee, but it is clear from some reactions outside the House, which were reflected in the other place, that more work is needed in that area. That is why I am happy not to pursue those clauses at the moment, and to see more work done. However, the House will need to return to the matter, because it involves some important points of principle about how we ensure that such collective rights can be exercised.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised a highly relevant point about clause 26. He will be aware of the actions that we have taken through amendment 33, and the agreement that it would be enacted separately. We just gave up on his amendment 43. I still do not think that it is a necessary part of the Bill, but in the other place I think they just decided, "Oh, all right then. Let's go on, let's do it. It won't do any harm." It certainly will not do any harm. The other concessions that we made in the other place have helped to improve the Bill; his amendment does not do so substantially, but there we go.
	I should like to say two final things. First, I thank the hon. Members for Fareham and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), with whom I have debated on many occasions over the past couple of years. If I may return their compliments, I must say that they have been unfailingly courteous and well reasoned in their arguments. Although I have not been able to agree with them on every occasion, I have always carefully considered what they have said; and, where I have thought it appropriate, I have asked officials to draft and bring forward amendments, as we have done during the passage of this Bill.
	Secondly, and lastly, I should like to thank my Bill team. Bills such as this require an awful lot of work on the part of many civil servants. My committed, dedicated and able team have provided me with terrific advice. I hope that I have not mangled their sentences too much in what I have said during the debates on the Bill. It is to their immense credit that so much of the Bill will be enacted very shortly, and that will be of benefit to people in Britain. So I say thank you very much to my team, and thanks also to hon. Members.
	 Lords amendment 5 agreed to.
	 Lords amendments 6 to 49 agreed to , with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 45 to 48 .

Anne McIntosh: I welcome this opportunity to make my last contribution of this Parliament. I thank my small but perfectly formed Bill Committee team of two at my office-they know who they are. I also convey my thanks to the Minister for his team, the Department's team and that of the Environment Agency in preparing the Bill and these most recent amendments.
	On a note of sadness, I should say that this is my last contribution of this Parliament as the MP for Vale of York. The recommissioning and redistribution of the boundaries mean that I shall, I hope, be moving to higher ground after the election.
	The Minister, gracious and charming as ever, has asked the House to support the amendments, which he calls "technical amendments"-as he knows, that gets our hearts beating a little faster. I take this opportunity to ask him whether the words "under an enactment", inserted by amendments 1 and 2, have any special meaning, in this Bill and more generally. As for amendment 3, what procedure will be followed in this regard?
	I understand that amendment 4 to clause 8 will be consequential to the amendments that we discussed and supported in Committee and in the remaining stages in this place. Obviously we would be grateful if the Minister would clarify the points about the Lands Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal.
	Like the Minister, I would like to pause for a moment to talk about some of the issues to which we did not do complete justice in considering the remaining stages of the Bill in this place. He will be aware of our concerns and those of interested parties about the provisions relating to reservoirs. We remain unconvinced and would have liked the time to look at the reservoir provisions more carefully. I am sure that the Minister and the House will recognise that the provisions have serious cost implications, especially for those who have small reservoirs on farms and golf courses, and other third-party users. The increased cost of the obligations imposed is causing serious concern and alarm.
	The Minister referred to adapting to climate change-or as some call it, adverse weather conditions. Across the country we have all at various times faced such weather conditions. There is a dilemma between wanting to store water to enable us to adapt to these conditions and the cost of creating more reservoirs.
	I hope that, whoever forms the next Government, the House will have an opportunity to discuss a White Paper on these issues. We as a party are committed to publishing such a White Paper. The omission of food policy and food security as a material consideration in the flood risk management decision-making process is one that the Government will have cause to regret. The national and local flood risk management strategy is flawed, with too much emphasis on the Environment Agency and too many powers being given to it. We have argued that there should be much more co-operation with local communities through their elected representatives on the local authorities.
	I referred earlier to the possible impact of the reservoir safety clauses on small farm reservoirs and those belonging to third parties. The Minister is aware of our ongoing concerns. I have referred to the fact that the Bill gives too much power to the Environment Agency, and to the implications of clause 38.
	I should like to place on record our disappointment that the natural hazards team has not reported as widely and done as full an audit of critical infrastructure as we would have wished. We had a good debate on SUDS- either the sustainable urban drainage or the sustainable drainage systems. We still need to identify who owns them and who will be responsible for maintaining them.
	We are still waiting for the publication date for the transfer of private drains-the lateral drains and sewers. This would be a good moment for the Minister to announce when the regulations and guidance will be issued. That is something on which we can perhaps campaign and have a proper debate, especially for those small privately owned drainage companies, which are largely family firms, who feel that they will lose out and that they have not been properly consulted. I hope that the Bill will put down a marker that we need regular maintenance work not just by the internal drainage boards but by the Environment Agency.
	We wish the Bill well. We know that we will return to the content in some measure with a White Paper. I am delighted that the Minister has taken on board our concerns and is calling the forthcoming discussions not a floods insurance summit but a floods summit. I hope that we will have a dry period in which to campaign in the forthcoming general election. We thank all who have been involved in the Bill on both sides of the House. I know that the Minister is not planning to retire from the House so we wish him well in the campaign. I am sure that that will be reciprocated. I thank him for the gracious manner in which he has skilfully steered the Bill through.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I reciprocate the comments of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and thank her for engagement with the issue. My officials will read the  Hansard report of the debate and will read her thanks to them. They have been open and engaged and I thank them for that. I also ask the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) to take my thanks back to his colleagues for their engagement in terms of finding the best way through.
	We had a great deal of debate about reservoirs. The issue has been aired in the other place, the Chamber and in Committee, but we have settled on this position as a result of consistent engineering advice based on a risk assessment approach. Partly because of our engagement with the hon. Lady and others, we have some flexibility to revisit the issue of over-capacity to take on some of her concerns.
	On future legislation, we are in agreement. We see the need for additional engagement. Beyond Pitt's recommendations, we have the Cave report and Anna Walker's report and so much besides. We will have to have some consolidating legislation and I am pleased to say that we are already working up some proposals internally to try to bring forward something at the earliest opportunity. As always, this will be subject to parliamentary time but we would share the hon. Lady's aspiration to have another water Bill before the House as soon as possible.
	I can confirm what I have said previously about drains: the transfer will go ahead next year. As for the regulations, I heard a whispered aside from behind me that they are in the pipeline. I can confirm that they will be available by the end of May. They are being drafted and are in a good state.
	We say "enactment" in the amendments because we do not want the power to create an entirely new function. The functions should be defined in statute before the order is used to define them as risk management functions. On the land tribunal and the change to the upper tribunal, other legislation has made the change, and the amendments merely reflect that.
	I thank the hon. Member for Hereford for reminding us why this Bill is so important to his constituents and to others throughout the country. At the risk of making this sound like an Oscar speech, it would be remiss of me not to thank those external organisations that have engaged with us in this process, those in the other place who have added so much to the Bill, Front and Back-Bench Members, Committee members and members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, who have carefully constructed the Bill. It is all a tribute to them, and to my Bill team who have unstintingly given their time and efforts to turn this into a good Bill. It will make a difference, and it will deliver Sir Michael's Pitts recommendations. There is more work to do of course, as there always is, but this is a singular step forward, and we should all be proud of the work that has gone into the Bill.
	 Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
	 Lords amendments 2 to 25 agreed to.
	 Sitting suspended (Order, 7 April).

Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Leader of the House of Lords, one of the Lords Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command. For greater accuracy I have obtained a copy, and also directed that the terms of the Speech be printed in the  Journal of this House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
	The Speech was as follows:
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
	 My Government's overriding priority has been to restore growth to deliver a fair and prosperous economy for families and businesses, as the British economy recovers from the global economic downturn. Through employment and training programmes, restructuring the financial sector, strengthening the national infrastructure and providing responsible investment, my Government has taken action to support growth and employment.
	 My Government has also strengthened key public services, ensuring that, increasingly, individual entitlements guarantee good services, and has worked to build  trust in democratic institutions.
	 My Government has sought effective global and European collaboration, including through the European Union, to combat climate change, including at the Copenhagen summit in December last year, and to sustain economic recovery through the G20.
	 The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to visit Bermuda, and Trinidad and Tobago for our State Visit and to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the Commonwealth's 60th anniversary year. We were glad to welcome the President of South Africa on his successful visit to this country earlier this year.
	The Duke of Edinburgh and I were saddened to learn of the devastation brought on Haiti and Chile by recent earthquakes and hope that relief and reconstruction efforts, which my Government and the British people have supported, can build on the spirit and resilience displayed by their people.
	 My Government has continued to reform and strengthen regulation of the financial services industry to ensure a stable financial sector that supports the wider economy, with greater protection for savers and taxpayers.
	 As the economic recovery is established, my Government has taken steps to reduce the budget deficit and ensure that national debt is on a sustainable path. Legislation has been enacted to halve the deficit.
	 An Act has been passed to enable the wider provision of free personal care to those with the highest needs.
	 An Act has been passed to protect communities by ensuring that parents take responsibility for their children's antisocial behaviour and by tackling youth gang crime.
	 An Act has been passed to ensure the communications infrastructure is fit for the digital age, supports future economic growth,  delivers competitive communications and enhances public service broadcasting.
	 Legislation has been enacted to support carbon capture and storage  and to help more of the most vulnerable households with their energy bills.
	 My Government has set out proposals for high-speed rail services between London and Scotland.
	 Legislation has been enacted to protect communities from flooding and to improve the management of water supplies.
	 My Government has remained committed to ensuring everyone has a fair chance in life and an Act has been passed to promote equality, narrow the gap between rich and poor and tackle discrimination. The Act also introduces transparency in the workplace to help address the differences in pay between men and women.
	 An Act has been passed to enshrine in law the commitment by my Government to abolish child poverty by 2020.
	 Legislation has been enacted to provide agency workers with the right to be treated equally with permanent staff on pay, holidays and other basic conditions after twelve weeks on an assignment.
	 Legislation has been enacted to take forward constitutional reform.
	 An Act has been passed to strengthen the law against bribery .
	 My Government has continued to work closely with the devolved administrations in the interests of all the people of the United Kingdom.  My Government has remained committed to the Northern Ireland political process and has continued to work with Northern Ireland's leaders to ensure the continued stability of the devolved institutions and to complete  the process of devolution by transferring policing and justice functions in April this year. 
	 In Scotland, my Government set out plans to further strengthens devolution in its response to Final Report of the Commission on Scottish Devolution.  My Government has continued to devolve more powers to Wales and has remained committed to a referendum on further devolution.
	Members of the House of Commons
	 I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
	 My Government has worked for security, stability and prosperity in Afghanistan and Pakistan and for peace in the Middle East.
	 Legislation has been enacted to ban cluster munitions.
	 My Government has continued to work towards creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, including addressing the challenges from Iran and North Korea.
	 Draft legislation has been published to make binding my Government's commitment to spend nought point seven per cent of national income on international development from 2013.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
	 I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.